"I hereby declare upon Oath that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States; that I will perform work of national importance when needed; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Friday, November 11, 2011

"Occupy" Violence: The Case For Deadly Force

The "Occupy" protests have turned deadly. Many people are shocked by this fact; I, however, am not. I believed, from the beginning, that this would be an inevitable product of the class warfare mentality behind the protests.

At the core of these protests is the erosion of property rights. The socialists encamped in our cities believe that individual property rights are "unfair" to those who have less property, and they seek to have government take property from its owners and redistribute it to others.

The link between a lack of respect for property rights and a lack of respect for the rights of the individual is well-known. Noted economist Walter Williams predicted this type of violence when he referenced this quote from John Adams:

"Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty." Adding, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."

Unfortunately, a large segment of our population doesn't grasp this connection.

This segment of the population, unaccustomed to violence, still maintain romantic notions of property crime. In their Mayberry-inspired worldview, burglars commit burglary because they are hungry, "things (property) can be replaced, but lives cannot", and "poor" shoplifters steal because they can't find work. This conduct, while illegal, can be excused because only those "down on their luck" would resort to such measures. These are the same snow-white souls who believe pornography and video games inspire violent thoughts and actions- they simply can't fathom how violent minds actually form.

In the real world, however, the situation is much more grave: Some people, such as the "Occupiers", harbor blind hatred for those who have more money and more property than themselves. These people have been taught to believe that any financially successful person obtained their wealth through criminal means; they have been raised to believe that no person advances through hard work (indeed, most of them have never had to perform "hard work"); they believe the criminal justice system exists solely to persecute them; and they believe savage, unmitigated violence is justified to redistribute property and "punish" the successful.

And "punish", they do: One need only see the sort of violence meted out during home invasion crimes (another form of class warfare): Raping and murdering adults and children, male and female alike; beating, torturing, disfiguring, and burning their victims alive; destroying property, homes, and businesses. These criminals believe that their victims- financially-stable nuclear families- have "stolen" from them, and believe themselves justified in inflicting a barbaric level of destruction and suffering as "punishment".

I have stated in other venues, and I will state here, that I strongly believe home invasion crimes will soon escalate in frequency and intensity, fueled by the class warfare furor of the "Occupy" protests. Both have the same basis: A hatred of those who "have more" than themselves. And both have degenerated to scarcely-believable levels of violence.

Those familiar with my self-defense activism know that I subscribe to the "personal autonomy" school of self-defense: The belief that each of us has a natural right to go about our lives unmolested, and to use any necessary means to ensure that condition. Far from justifying the debasement or punishment of others (as described above), this view of self-defense elevates and enhances the rights of the defender. This view encapsulates Oliver Wendell Holmes' view of rights: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".

This condition leaves only one tenable response: Recognition of the right of the individual to use any necessary means to combat this savagery- by which I mean, the employment of deadly force.

A few states- Texas being the prime example- already recognize a person's natural right to kill in defense of their property. In Texas, no person is mandated by the state to suffer the burglary or arson of their home or any other property. The age-old Castle Doctrine finds its greatest recognition in this state. Even the theft of property at night may be resisted with deadly force.

As a natural result, "Occupy Dallas" has been substantially less violent than other "Occupy" protests. In fact, "Occupy Dallas" has resorted to seeking a legal remedy to prevent their eviction. The lesson learned here: Recognizing the natural right of the innocent to defend their property with deadly force enhances, rather than erodes, the rule of law.

Unfortunately, most states grant little recognition of this right. In this regard, the state of Wisconsin is the worst offender, explicitly stating in its criminal code that self-defense is a privilege licensed by the state to the individual, not a right, and explicitly prohibiting the use of deadly force to protect property under any circumstances. One need only see the atrocious nature of the state capitol protests months ago to see the effect of this policy.

Adams' words are as correct today as they were two centuries ago. The erosion of any right cherished by the people will eventually lead to the erosion of all rights. We are seeing the cumulative effect of this erosion- Adams' "anarchy and tyranny"- today.

3 comments:

What is legal and what one would like to do are 2 different things. The fact with using deadly force is: If you fear for your life that iw will be terminated by an individual or situation then you have a legal right to employ deadly force. This goes for protecting another individual if they are facing the same situation and they are not armed. More than anything when protecting another individual it is your responsibility to protect.

If you are armed and someone pulls a knife, gun, 2x4 or even an ASP you can use deadly force to protect yourself.

It would be to easy to shirk this responsibility and operate as the occupy group would do and just open fire and take them out. We would be no better than they are.

Must keep in mind as legal gun owners that we are like anyone else. We are just armed to protect ourselves just as the Police are. As a legal gun owner I hold myself to a higher standard. One having a great responsibility to uphold concerning the sanctity of life and protecting life. ---cwpseattle aka Mike C

Mike, you're absolutely right. In the case of "Occupy", we fall back on the principle of "Disparity of Force" (I'm sure you're very familiar with it). An individual business owner, or a group of a few employees, is surely confronted with a risk of death or great bodily harm while being assailed by dozens, perhaps scores, of rioters intent on destroying their property and/or physically brutalizing them.

The question to pose in that situation is this: Does the person have a right to use force (physical, not deadly) to resist theft and property damage? Obviously yes. The next question: Will the application of physical force result in that large group of assailants escalating their injury of the defender? Again, obviously yes. At this point, the debate rests on whether or not the defender should a) submit to the destruction of their property or b) be allowed to utilize deadly force in lieu of physical force. I don't think people should be forced to submit to ruination.

You always have the right to use physical force if applied to you or your property. Meet force with like force. After all it is your property and your business. People have worked hard for their businesses and should not sub come to terrorists domestic or foreign. Fight back it is your right.